US/Europe comparison of ATM- related operational ... Meetings Seminars and Workshop… · related operational performance ... • Trade-offs and other performance affecting factors

Federal Aviation Administration

EUROCONTROL

US/Europe comparison of ATM-related operational performance

Joint study between FAA and PRU

September 21, 2011

Hartmut Koelman (Eurocontrol-PRU)

Dave Knorr (FAA-ATO)

2 Federal Aviation Administration

EUROCONTROL

FAA-DFS comparison draft Nov20-

08

Objective & Scope

OBJECTIVES

• to provide a high-level comparison of operational performance between the US and Europe Air Navigation systems.

• Initial focus on the development of a set of comparable performance indicators for high level comparisons between countries and world regions.

SCOPE

• Predictability and Efficiency of operations

• Link to “Environment” when evaluating additional fuel burn.

• Continental US airspace (Oceanic and Alaska excluded)

• EUROCONTROL States (excluding oceanic areas and the Canary Islands)

• Focus on data subset (traffic from/to top 34 airports) due to better data quality (OEP airports) and comparability (general aviation).

• Commercial IFR flights

NOT in SCOPE

• Safety, Cost effectiveness, Capacity

• Trade-offs and other performance

affecting factors (weather, etc.)


EUROCONTROL


08

Key characteristics of the two systems

[1] Eurocontrol States plus the Estonia and Latvia, but excluding oceanic areas and Canary Islands.

[2] Area, flight hours and center count refers to CONUS only. The term US CONUS refers to the 48 contiguous States located on the North American continent south of the border with

Canada, plus the District of Columbia, excluding Alaska, Hawaii and oceanic areas.

[3] Total of 503 facilities of which 263 are FAA staffed and 240 contract towers.

Calendar Year 2008 Europe[1] USA[2] Difference

Geographic Area (million km2) 11.5 10.4 -10%

Number of en-route Air Navigation Service Providers 38 1

Number of Air Traffic Controllers (ATCOs in OPS) 16 800 14 000 -17%

Total staff 56 000 35 000 -40%

Controlled flights (IFR) (million) 10 17 +70%

Share of General Air Traffic 4% 23% x5.5

Flight hours controlled (million) 14 25 +80%

Average length of flight (within region) 541 NM 497 NM -8%

Nr. of en-route centers 65 20 - 70%

En-route sectors at maximum configuration 679 955 +40%

Nr. of airports with ATC services 450 263 [3] -38%

Of which are slot controlled > 73 3

Source Eurocontrol FAA/ATO


EUROCONTROL


08

Airspace Density Comparison (CONUS & European Centers)

Density (flight Hr per Sq.Km)

< 1

< 2

< 3

< 4

< 5

>= 5

*Note due to Mercator projection, northern areas appear larger

• Actual sizes are comparable (USA 10.4 vs Europe 11.5 M km2)

• Relative density (flight hours per km2) is 1.2 in Europe and 2.4 in US


EUROCONTROL


08

Some facts about the main airports in the US and in Europe

Main 34 airports in 2008 Europe US Difference US

vs. Europe

Average number of annual movements per airport (‘000) 265 421 +59%

Average number of annual passengers per airport (million) 25 32 +29%

Passengers per movement 94 76 -19%

Average number of runways per airport 2.5 4.0 +61%

Annual movements per runway (‘000) 106 107 +1%

Annual passengers per runway (million) 10.0 8.1 -19%

• Traffic to/from the main 34 airports represents some 68% of all IFR flights in Europe

and 64% in the US.

• The share of general aviation to/from the main 34 airports is more comparable with

4% in the US and 1.6% in Europe.

• Average number of runways (+61%) and the number of movements (+59%) are

significantly higher in the US;

• Number of passengers per movement in the US (-19%) are much lower than in

Europe.


EUROCONTROL


08

Air traffic growth in the US and in Europe (IFR flights)

• After 2004, number of controlled flights did not increase in the US, and increased approximately +25% in Europe (~4% p.a.).

• Average values mask contrasted growth rates within the US and Europe

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

130

19

99

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

Ind

ex (

19

99

=1

00

)

US

Europe

Source: EUROCONTROL/ FAA


EUROCONTROL


08

Average seats per scheduled flight in the US and in Europe

• Average seat size per scheduled flight differs in the two systems with

Europe having a higher percentage of flights using “Large” aircraft than

the US.

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

av

g. s

ea

ts p

er

flig

ht

Scheduled services (Main 34 airports)

Scheduled services (all)

90

95

100

105

110

115

120

20

00

20

01

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

Scheduled services (OEP 34 airports)

Scheduled services (all)

IINTRA-European Flights US DOMESTIC Flights (CONUS)

Source: FAA/ PRC analysis


EUROCONTROL


08

70%

72%

74%

76%

78%

80%

82%

84%

86%

88%

90%2

00

2

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

Departures (<=15min.) Arrivals (<=15min.)

70%

72%

74%

76%

78%

80%

82%

84%

86%

88%

90%

20

02

20

03

20

04

20

05

20

06

20

07

20

08

On-time performance compared to schedule

(flights to/from the 34 main airports)

Europe US

Source: E-CODA Source: ASQP data

On-time performance in the US and in Europe

Similar pattern in US and Europe with a comparable level of arrival on time performance;

The gap between departure and arrival punctuality is significant in the US and quasi nil in Europe suggesting differences in flow management strategies

Punctuality –

Arrivals/ departures

delayed by less than

15 minutes versus

schedule


EUROCONTROL


08

Airline Scheduling: Evolution of block times

Europe: Block times remain relatively stable (left side)

US: In addition to decreasing on time performance (previous slide), there is a clear

increase in scheduled block times (right side)

Seasonal effects are visible in the US and in Europe (due to wind)

Scheduled block

times compared

to the long term

average at city

pair level.

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

Ja

n-0

0

Ja

n-0

1

Ja

n-0

2

Ja

n-0

3

Ja

n-0

4

Ja

n-0

5

Ja

n-0

6

Ja

n-0

7

Ja

n-0

8

min

ute

s

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

Ja

n-0

0

Ja

n-0

1

Ja

n-0

2

Ja

n-0

3

Ja

n-0

4

Ja

n-0

5

Ja

n-0

6

Ja

n-0

7

Ja

n-0

8

Europe US (conus)

Source: FAA/PRU

Evolution of Scheduled Block Times

(flights to/from 34 main airports)


EUROCONTROL


08

Comparison of operational performance by phase of flight

Consistent measures being established in the US and Europe

100 n

m

40 n

m

Feb 15th 2008

0h01-23h59

GATE-to-GATEDEPARTURE

ANS-relatedHolding at the

Gate (ATFM/

EDCT)

Taxi-outefficiency

En-route

Flight

efficiency

IFR flights

To/from

Main 34

airports

Efficiency

In last

100NM

Taxi-inefficiency

IFR flights

To/from

Main 34

airports


EUROCONTROL


08

Efficiency: ANS-related departure delays

• ATFM/EDCT delays are delays taken on the ground

at the departure airports (mostly at the gate)

• Both systems use ground delays programs to

manage traffic but to a various extent

– Mainly used in US in case of severe capacity constraints at the

arrival airports

– Extensively used in Europe to manage both En-route and

airport capacity limitation


ANS-related

Holding at the

Gate (ATFM/EDCT)

Taxi-out

efficiency

En-route

Flight

efficiency

Efficiency

In last

100NM


EUROCONTROL


08

Efficiency: ANS-related departure delays

2008 En-route related delays >15

min. (EDCT/ATFM)

Airport related delays >15 min.

(EDCT/ATFM)

IFR

fligh

ts

(M)

% o

f fligh

ts

dela

yed>

15

min

.

dela

y per

fligh

t (min

.)

dela

y per

dela

yed flig

ht

(min

.)

% o

f fligh

ts

dela

yed>

15

min

.

dela

y per

fligh

t (min

.)

dela

y per

dela

yed flig

ht

(min

.)

US 9.2 0.1% 0.1 57 2.6% 1.8 70

Europe 5.6 5.0% 1.4 28 3.0% 0.9 32

US: En-route delays are much lower per flight, but the delay per delayed flight is

significantly higher;

Europe: Higher share of flights affected (than US) but with a lower average delay.

In the US, ground delays (EDCT) are used when other options such as MIT are not

sufficient, whereas, in Europe ground delays (ATFM) are the main ATM tool for

balancing demand with capacity


ANS-related

Holding at the

Gate (ATFM/EDCT)

Taxi-out

efficiency

En-route

Flight

efficiency

Efficiency

In last

100NM


EUROCONTROL


08

Additional time in the taxi out phase GATE-to-GATEDEPARTURE

ANS-related

Holding at the

Gate (ATFM/EDCT)

Taxi-out

efficiency

En-route

Flight

efficiency

Efficiency

In last

100NM

• Measured as the time from off-block to take-off in excess of

an unimpeded time.

– Unimpeded time is representative

of the time needed to complete

an operation in period of low traffic

– Unimpeded time may not be a realistic

reference in period of high traffic

• Additional time in the taxi-out phase may be due to runway

capacity constraints or results from local en-route departure

and miles in trails restriction


EUROCONTROL


08

Additional time in the taxi out phase

Additional times in the taxi out phase are higher in the US (6.2 min.) than in Europe

(4.3 min.)

For the US, excess times also include delays due to local en-route departure and

miles in trail restrictions. .


ANS-related

Holding at the

Gate (ATFM/EDCT)

Taxi-out

efficiency

En-route

Flight

efficiency

Efficiency

In last

100NM

0

5

10

15

20

London

(LH

R)

Rom

e

(FC

O)

London

(LG

W)

Paris (

CD

G)

Dublin

(DU

B)

Barc

elo

na

(BC

N)

Ista

nbul

(IS

T)

Am

ste

rdam

(AM

S)

Munic

h

(MU

C)

Madrid

(MA

D)

Dusseld

orf

(DU

S)

Mila

n (

MX

P)

Zurich

(ZR

H)

London

(ST

N)

Mancheste

r

(MA

N)

Copenhagen

(CP

H)

Stu

ttgart

(ST

R)

Vie

nna

(VIE

)

Geneva

(GV

A)

Wars

aw

(WA

W)

min

ute

s p

er

de

pa

rtu

reEurope main 34 average (4.3 min.)

0

5

10

15

20

New

ark

(EW

R)

New

York

(JF

K)

New

York

(LG

A)

Atlanta

(AT

L)

Phila

delp

hia

(PH

L)

Charlotte

(CLT

)

Chic

ago

(OR

D)

Detr

oit

(DT

W)

Bosto

n

(BO

S)

Las V

egas

(LA

S)

Salt L

ake

City (

SLC

)

Phoenix

(PH

X)

Min

neapolis

(MS

P)

Washin

gto

n

(DC

A)

Washin

gto

n

(IA

D)

Mem

phis

(ME

M)

Cin

cin

nati

(CV

G)

Ft.

Lauderd

ale

Housto

n

(IA

H)

Denver

(DE

N)

US OEP 34 average (6.2 min.)

Source: FAA/ PRC analysis/ CODA/ CFMU

Average additional time in the taxi out phase(Only the first 20 airports are shown)


EUROCONTROL


08

En-route flight Efficiency: Approach

40 NM

Airport A

Airport B

GD

A En-route

extension

Actual route

(A)

Great Circle

(G)

Direct Course

(D)

Direct route

extension

TMA interface

• Indicator is the difference between the length of the actual trajectory (A) and the

Great Circle Distance (G) between the departure and arrival terminal areas.

• Direct route extension is measured as the difference between the actual route (A)

and the direct course between the TMA entry points (D).

• This difference is an ideal (and unachievable) situation where each aircraft would

be alone in the sky and not subject to any constraints (i.e. safety, capacity).

•Focus on

horizontal flight

efficiency

•Distance based

approach


ANS-related

Holding at the

Gate (ATFM/EDCT)

Taxi-out

efficiency

En-route

Flight

efficiency

Efficiency

In last

100NM


EUROCONTROL


08

Boston (BOS) to Philadelphia (PHL) Flights

Great Circle Distance: 242 nmi

Average Excess Distance: 102 nmi

Percent Excess Distance over

Great Circle: 42.1%

Average excess distance per stage:

First 40 nmi: 12 nmi

40 to 40 nmi circles: 63 nmi

Last 40 nmi: 27 nmi


ANS-related

Holding at the

Gate (ATFM/EDCT)

Taxi-out

efficiency

En-route

Flight

efficiency

Efficiency

In last

100NM

July 2007


EUROCONTROL


08

IAD to FLL

Number of Flights 1488

Direct Flight Indicator Total (A-G) 41.9

Direct Between TMA (A-D) 20.3

TMA Interface (G-D) 21.5


EUROCONTROL


08

Sample „Inefficient“ DFS Routes


EUROCONTROL


08

Efficiency: Additional time in the last 100NM

100 n

m

40 n

m

Feb 15th 2008

0h01-23h59

• Capture tactical arrival control measures (sequencing, flow integration, speed

control, spacing, stretching, etc.), irrespective of local strategies.

• Standard “Arrival Sequencing and Metering Area” (ASMA) is defined as two

consecutive rings with a radius of 40NM and 100NM around each airport.

• In Europe delay absorption at departure airport or around the arrival airport while in

the US sequencing can span back to the departure airports (MIT)


ANS-related

Holding at the

Gate (ATFM/EDCT)

Taxi-out

efficiency

En-route

Flight

efficiency

Efficiency

In last

100NM

• At Frankfurt as much as

an extra 15 minutes can

be absorbed inside the

Terminal Airspace

• Long Final alternative to

holding stacks like in

Heathrow


EUROCONTROL


08

Efficiency: Excess time in the last 100NM

• Time based measure

• Captures type of A/C

• ARC Entry point and

runway configuration

• Nominal derived from

20th percentile

• Excess – time above

nominal for each

category

100 nmi

40 nmi

x

Arrival

Airport

Arrival Fix

Actual Route

Notional Optimal

Route

2.5%


EUROCONTROL


08

Flight efficiency: Direct Route Extension

• Direct route extension is approximately 1% lower in the US

• US: Miles in trail restrictions are passed back from constrained airports

• Europe: Fragmentation of airspace, location of shared civil/military

airspace


ANS-related

Holding at the

Gate (ATFM/EDCT)

Taxi-out

efficiency

En-route

Flight

efficiency

Efficiency

In last

100NM

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

EUR US EUR US EUR US EUR US EUR US EUR US

0-199 NM 200-399 NM 400-599 NM 600-799 NM 800-999 NM >1000 NM

En

-ro

ute

exte

nsio

n (

%)

TMA interface (D-G)/G

Direct route extension (A-D)/G

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

% o

f fl

igh

ts

En-route extension flights to/from the main 34 airports (2008)

Great circle distance between 40 NM circles (D40-A40)

EUR US

TOTAL


EUROCONTROL


08

Additional time within the last 100NM

Average additional time is similar in Europe (2.8 min.) and the US (2.9 min.)

Mainly driven by London Heathrow (LHR) which is clearly an outlier

Performance at LHR is consistent with the 10 minute average delay criteria agreed

by the airport scheduling committee.


ANS-related

Holding at the

Gate (ATFM/EDCT)

Taxi-out

efficiency

En-route

Flight

efficiency

Efficiency

In last

100NM

0

2

4

6

8

10

London

(LH

R)

Fra

nkfu

rt

(FR

A)

Ath

ens

(AT

H)

Vie

nna

(VIE

)

Madrid

(MA

D)

Munic

h

(MU

C)

London

(LG

W)

Zurich

(ZR

H)

Geneva

(GV

A)

Nic

e (

NC

E)

Rom

e

(FC

O)

Dusseld

orf

(DU

S)

Dublin

(DU

B)

Ham

burg

(HA

M)

Barc

elo

na

(BC

N)

Mancheste

r

(MA

N)

Mila

n

(MX

P)

Paris

(OR

Y)

London

(ST

N)

Oslo

(O

SL)

min

ute

s p

er

arr

iva

l

Average additional time within the last 100NM miles(only the first 20 airports in 2008 are shown)

Europe main 34 average (2.8 min.)

0

2

4

6

8

10

Phila

delp

hia

(PH

L)

New

York

(JF

K)

New

York

(LG

A)

New

ark

(EW

R)

Charlotte

(CLT

)

Atlanta

(AT

L)

Mem

phis

(ME

M)

Bosto

n

(BO

S)

Chic

ago

(OR

D)

Washin

gto

n

(IA

D)

Baltim

ore

(BW

I)

Min

neapolis

(MS

P)

Chic

ago

(MD

W)

San

Fra

ncis

co

Tam

pa

(TP

A)

Orlando

(MC

O)

Washin

gto

n

(DC

A)

Denver

(DE

N)

Seattle

(SE

A)

Phoenix

(PH

X)

min

ute

s p

er

arr

iva

l

US OEP 34 average (2.9 min.)

Source: FAA/ PRC analysis


EUROCONTROL


08

Continuous Descent Arrival

CDA is an arrival procedure designed to eliminate

level segments flown below cruise altitude, thus

minimizing fuel burn, emissions and noise.

In a CDA, these level segments

would be flown at cruise altitude

Continuous Descent

Arrival

Standard Arrival


EUROCONTROL


08

What ATM can do ?

ATM can help improving performance by :

• Maximizing throughput so as to minimize total delay

– Making the best use of capacity available

– Optimizing Departure/landing sequences

• Minimizing the impact of delay

– Priority between flights

– Minimizing fuel impact by managing the Phase of Flight where necessary delay is applied

• But be careful

– Delaying aircraft on the ground (engine off) is not always more fuel efficient than airborne delays !

– Continuous descent approach can burn more fuel than interrupted Descent


EUROCONTROL


08

Conclusions

• High value in global comparisons and benchmarking in order to optimise performance and identify best practice;

• Arrival punctuality is similar in the US and in Europe, albeit with a higher level of variability in the US.

• The estimated inefficiency pool actionable by ANS and associated fuel burn appear to be similar in the US and Europe (estimated to be between 6-8% of the total fuel burn) but with notable differences in the distribution by phase of flight.

• Inefficiencies have a different impact (fuel burn, time) on airspace users,

depending on the phase of flight (airborne vs. ground) and the level of

predictability (strategic vs. tactical). Further work is needed to assess the

impact of efficiency and predictability on airspace users, the utilisation of

capacity, and the environment.

• A more comprehensive comparison of service performance would also need to address Safety, Capacity and other performance affecting factors such as weather and governance.

Documents

US/Europe comparison of ATM- related operational ... Meetings Seminars and Workshop… · related operational performance ... • Trade-offs and other performance affecting factors